Posted on 09/30/2009 11:46:34 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
The Anti-Defamation League, the country's leading group dedicated to fighting anti-Semitism, is rightly sensitive to the offense of trivializing the Holocaust. Why, then, has the ADL said nothing in protest against the Darwinian biologist and bestselling atheist author Richard Dawkins and his comparison of Darwin doubters to Holocaust deniers?...
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.beliefnet.com ...
Did you read Agamemnon’s?
You see the ball is still in your court.
My questions related to his. I require his clarification to answer accurately.
But you wouldn’t understand that. I bet he does, though.
This is an old tactic. When things don't go your way, just claim the OT doesn't apply anymore. But when you need something from the OT to make your point, suddenly it applies again. The Bible consists of both the OT and the NT, deal with it.
Actually, I was waiting for you to pull a No True Scotsman fallacy.
Wow, were you going for the record for most insults in a single post?
I do appreciate the pics though, I rather like them. :-)
“Darwin in Descent… associates the term “civilized” humans with “Caucasians,” as opposed to “some [non-Caucasian anthropomorphous- ed.] ape as low as a baboon,…””
—another edit by someone who doesn’t know what they’re talking about. An ‘ape’ at the time included some primates which we now call ‘monkeys’ such as baboons. Chimps, gorillas, orangutan, and gibbons were thus the ‘anthropomorphous apes’, while baboons were often called ‘apes’ but not of the ‘anthropomorphous’ variety.
“…and subsequently associates the terms, “negro or Australian” with the term, “gorilla.” So when Darwin writes “The anthropomorphous apes, namely the gorilla,…” given the context of his entire statement, he has as much as called into equivalence by association the terms “negro,” “anthropomorphous apes,” and “gorilla.”
—I’m guessing you are referring to this quote:
“The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”
—Notice that the negro and Australian is included with “man”, not with apes, anthropomorphous or otherwise. At the beginning of the paragraph he said this:
“The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species”
Thus there is a ‘great break’ between man (e.g. negros and Australians) and the anthropomorphous apes (i.e chimps, gorillas, organgutans, and gibbons). It’s so great that no single species could possibly fill the gap. Many steps are required to get from an ape-like creature to man. He explains the current gap by saying that the intermediate species are all extinct. Should anyone see this as unlikely, he points out that this is a trend that is currently going on to this day. This is where he makes his oft quoted prediction of the anthropomorphous apes (chimps, gorillas, orangutans, and gibbons) going extinct, and also predicts (based on what he’s personally seen) that the ‘savage races’ of man will also be wiped out. At that point our closest relative will be the quite un-anthropomorphous baboon.
“The term, “Anthropomorphous ape” is an evolutionary concoction, and is relevant only to those persons who group “races” of people into classifications as though they are species.”
—heh, no. It was a very common term, and was used before Darwin was born, and was used just as commonly by non-evolutionists.
“Marx declared as much in letters to Darwin.”
—What letters to Darwin?
“Gobineau is a “Pre-Darwinian” you say? Your research skills – or lack thereof – fail you once again.”
—I guess I could have been clearer (although I thought it’d be obvious) - his most influential works (particularly “Essay”) predates Darwinism (“Origin”), and Gobinism predated Darwinism.
“Materialist Creationists, which includes most atheistic and agnostic Darwinian evolutionists – and likely yourself, believe they created themselves”
—I certainly don’t believe I created myself, and I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone that believe they created themselves.
“Anyone who lived prior to Darwin was a Pre-Darwinian Creationist, doofus.”
—Err, no. There were plenty of evolutionists before Darwin was born. :-) Lamarck is an obvious one.
“One of the inherent evils that permeates Darwin’s writing is that the term, “race” previously reserved for defining peoples and nations, became re-defined, corrupted, and expanded to mean classification of human beings on the basis of physical characteristics.”
—Err, no. During Darwin’s time and even before it was very common to use physical characteristics to separate humans not only into separate races, but even into separate species (an idea known as ‘polygenism’, which was particularly popular in America).
Most polygenists were particularly anti-evolution and are a big reason that Darwinism had initial trouble catching on in America. Some examples of their work:
“Crania Americana: Or, a Comparative View of the Skulls of Various Aboriginal Nations of North and South America. To which is prefixed an Essay on the Varieties of the Human Species” - Samuel Morton, 1839.
“Types of Mankind” - Josiah Clark Nott and George Robins Gliddon, 1854
Going back further:
Cuvier, the Father of Catastrophism,(1769-1832) in 1817: “The Negro race is confined to the area south of the Atlas Mountains. With its small cranium, its flattened nose, its protruding jaw, and its large lips, this race clearly resembles the monkeys. The people belonging to it have always remained barbarians. “
Even Linnaeus in his 1758 work Systema Naturae separated humans into 5 subspecies based on differing physical characteristics.
Probably Darwin’s most bitter scientific enemy in America was Louis Agassiz, who was rabidly anti-evolution:
“it is impossible for me to reprocess the feeling that they are not of the same blood as us. In seeing their black faces with their lips and grimacing teeth, the wool on their head, their bent knees, their elongated hands, their large curved nails, and especially the livid color of the palm of their hands, I could not take my eyes off their face in order to tell them to stay far away. And when they advanced that hideous hand towards my plate in order to serve me, I wished I were able to depart in order to eat a piece of bread elsewhere, rather than dine with such service. What unhappiness for the white race - to have tied their existence so closely with that of negroes in certain countries! God preserve us from such a contact!”
(Read enough stuff like this, and yes, Darwin does become a “breath of fresh air”.)
And in fact, Darwin even often kinda mocked those that attempted the feat of separating humans into species or races:
“But the most weighty of all the arguments against treating the races of man as distinct species, is that they graduate into each other, independently in many cases, as far as we can judge, of their having intercrossed. Man has been studied more carefully than any other animal, and yet there is the greatest possible diversity amongst capable judges whether he should be classed as a single species or race, or as two (Virey), as three (Jacquinot), as four (Kant), five (Blumenbach), six (Buffon), seven (Hunter), eight (Agassiz), eleven (Pickering), fifteen (Bory de St-Vincent), sixteen (Desmoulins), twenty-two (Morton), sixty (Crawfurd), or as sixty-three, according to Burke.”
“You try to have it both ways: Darwin uses the term “races” but supposedly by your telling of it, he wasn’t speaking of “races” of people, he meant “populations” and “species.”
—Uh, no, wasn’t saying that. I was saying that at Darwin’s time “race” had a more technical meaning and didn’t just mean human ‘races’.
“Can you credibly point to any other living organism apart from human beings who are ever referred to in terms of races?.”
—(sigh) Really? OK, from “The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection; or, the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life” :
“With respect to horses, from reasons which I cannot here give, I am doubtfully inclined to believe, in opposition to several authors, that all the races belong to the same species.”
“Great as are the differences between the breeds of the pigeon, I am fully convinced that the common opinion of naturalists is correct, namely, that
all are descended from the rock-pigeon (Columba livia), including under this term several geographical races or sub-species”
“It has often been loosely said that all our races of dogs have been produced by the crossing of a few aboriginal species”
“They believe that every race which breeds true, let the distinctive characters be ever so slight, has had its wild prototype. At this rate there must have existed at least a score of species of wild cattle, as many sheep, and several goats, in Europe alone”
“when we compare the host of agricultural, culinary, orchard, and flower-garden races of plants”
“When a race of plants is once pretty well established, the seed-raisers do not pick out the best plants”
“Pigeons can be mated for life, and this is a great convenience to the fancier, for thus many races may be improved and kept true”
“Several experienced ornithologists consider our British red grouse as only a strongly marked race of a Norwegian species”
“Nevertheless the perfect fertility of so many domestic races, differing widely from each other in appearance, for instance, those of the pigeon, or of the cabbage”
I’m still wondering what one earth you think the book is about??
“There are “breeds” of animals, but where are the scientists referring to any of them as “races?”
—Yes, language has changed somewhat in the past 150 years (gee, imagine that).
Here’s a non-Darwin example (from one of his anti-evolutionary scientist opponents, Mivart):
“There are numerous races of Sapajous, but the individuals vary so remarkably that the number of species has been as yet by no means satisfactorily determined.” (A type of new-world monkey)
“Hmmmm. “Anthropoid ape.” “Anthropomorphous ape” There’s that term again. Kinda funny how Nazi doctors and race theorists understood the meaning of Darwin and Schaffhausen, but for some silly reason likely related to your chosen state of blissful ignorance, you fail to make the connection!”
—He didn’t say that non-Nordics are anthropoid apes, he’s saying they are “next to” anthropoid apes – i.e. he views non-Nordics as being barely above apes (as opposed to Darwin who say a “great break” between apes and humans). It would be rather odd to mention that non-Nordics can mate with Nordics if that included chimps and gorillas, don’t you think?
“You in fact fall right into the trap as you carelessly imply that human beings are to be thought of as different species on the basis of “race.”
“You earlier labeled Darwin a racist. It appears you are as much a bigoted racist as Darwin ever was.”
—Where are earth did you get any of THAT from?
“I have debated with intellectually brighter, and more intellectually honest persons in the past” — Big time ditto.
The only true Christian is a Biblical Christian.
No true, Biblical Christian would EVER have any problem answering those questions nor understanding them.
No true Christian would ever have to try to parse their answers to the simplest questions which were posed to you and whose answers form the foundations of Biblical Christian faith.
Regardless of what ever it is you claim to be, you are not a Biblical Christian.
I just see a long standing hold over from the Darwin Central club who has to this point evaded getting himself banned like most of them did.
But time will tell....
With that post you identified yourself as a cultist—that is, it’s Christianity your way or no way.
Sorry, pal, but most Christians fully accept the allegorical nature of scripture. Most accept at least the feasibility of evolution.
It is not with Christianity that evolution is inconsistent, but only with bull-headed, fingers-in-the-ears, denial-of-the-obvious literalism.
God gave us brains to use to figure out the method of his creation. He is disappointed indeed that you are not using yours.
I say that as a real Christian.
In light of the answer Agamemnon graciously provided you with, it is now your turn to return the courtesy and answer the question of how you define a Christian as so many others have repeatedly asked you, which you have repeatedly refused to answer.
Please define “Christianity”, specifically with respect to whatever standard you have chosen to use, and inform us as to what that standard is.
People do a lot of evil in the name of about anything. That's meaningless. People will justify about anything given the chance.
Unless you can demonstrate beyond the shadow of a doubt that the people who commit atrocities in the name of Christianity actually WERE (or ARE) Christians, that is irrelevant.
Christianity in no way condones evil behavior in its adherents and evil behavior in the name of Christianity in no way negates the message of Christ.
Those people who behave in such an un-christlike manner, as not Christians. One simply cannot call himself a follower of Christ and be credible, and so violate His teachings.
What a crock. That's just an excuse so that you don't have to answer at all.
No matter what anyone says and how clearly they explain, you will claim that it's not clear enough and you are not obligated to answer; just as you always do.
Busted....
We have very different definitions of the word “gracious”. Like other cult members, the poster applied a litmus test and told me that I was not a Christian.
Actually, it’s even better than that! I hadn’t even answered his questions, and he just assumed I was not a Christian. You know, the funny thing is that his questions did not even conststute a good test. One could answer all 5 in the affirmative and still believe in TToE.
Now, are Catholics Christians?
Reverse earned bias in action again.
This merely illustartes your profound disconnect.
Ummm the subject is slaughter, not "when things don't go your way" and the simple fact is you just can't find that kind of direction in the NT....projecting about "when things don't go your way" doesn't change that fact.
And your projections about "dealing with it" is what it is!
Exactly.
And pretty much he’s just too incompetent to get himself banned!
I guess that means that Jesus is the ultimate cultist in your book.
He said,...""I am the way, the truth, the life. No man comes to the Father but through me. (John 14:6)
Busted?
Really, your posts are approaching the verbal eloquence of tpanther but with none of his tact.
My questions were reasonable. To paraphrase them: What is a lie, and is scripture literally true?
You may answer if you wish to entertain me.
“I guess that means that Jesus is the ultimate cultist in your book. “
Not at all—only those who bastardize his message in an effort to overcome a weak faith and to ensure a position of power in the megachurch pecking order qualify as cultists.
Now, who might that be...?
You've applied a litmus test and told me that I'm not a Christian but a cultist.
I guess that makes you a cultist too.
Jesus gave us the litmus test in John chapters 14-17. He didn't have any trouble giving us criteria on which to make a determination of who is and is not a Christian, and if anyone has the authority to do that, it would be he whose name those who call themselves Christians claim.
Look in the mirror.
“Busted...”
yup. again. for like the ga-jillionth time.
I think without us, bucket-o-poo would lead a very lonely existence.
There’s always DC/DU, moveOn, huff-n-stuff but how fun would that be?
“You’ve applied a litmus test and told me that I’m not a Christian but a cultist. “
Ah, but you demonstrate that you are a cultist by your actions.
You are not a cultist by virtue of your beliefs; in fact, by that measure alone you are nominally a Christian. You are a cultist, however, because of your steadfast insistence on assuming the godlike decision making authority as to who else is Christian, and who is not. You refuse to acknowledge the Christianity of others, Catholics included.
That makes you a cultist.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.